This is neither here nor there in regards to this series, but I feel that Bernier should probably be listed as a C/RW, and not just a RW. It seems his best and most successful seasons were definitely centering Tardif and Cloutier in Quebec. He's played enough RW I think to be considered a legitimate two position player, but his most successful seasons were definitely at C.

This is neither here nor there in regards to this series, but I feel that Bernier should probably be listed as a C/RW, and not just a RW. It seems his best and most successful seasons were definitely centering Tardif and Cloutier in Quebec. He's played enough RW I think to be considered a legitimate two position player, but his most successful seasons were definitely at C.

That's really good to know for future reference. I took his previous draft positions at face value, didn't even think to check if he was multipositional.

That would actually give me an option to go with Juneau-Bernier-Dornhoefer on the second PP, but I really do think we should be locked in with our lineups at this point.

Again, positions matter. 5th, 8th and 11th at his position are significant numbers.

That may or may not be true... but that's a totally different language than most of us speak. I don't have any clue if 5th, 8th and 11th in PP goals among LWs is great for an MLDer, average, or poor, or if it's statistically significant. I wouldn't be able to tell you how many of my own forwards that is better or worse than.

His PP points rankings among all positions, I would be much more interested to know. And his career adjusted PPP/game.

It's the same logic used earlier in the thread when Craven was defended as a solid playmaking winger. His assist totals are ugly among all players, but if you boil it down to only his contemporary LWs, he looks like a middle-of-the-road 1st liner here. I thought it was a point well made by BillyShoe.

Likewise, I'm simply asking Brown to be effective in a narrow role. He is a reasonably good PP scoring winger compared to his contemporaries. His assists are going to be low no matter what, because he's not asked to be a setup man, so looking at his points among all players is like measuring Craven's effectiveness by his goal scoring among all players. Brown's job is strictly to get in the dirty areas and raise hell, regardless whether he actually touches the puck. That creates a 4-on-3 or better in the rest of the offensive zone, and gives the already inconsistent Beaupre something to think about other than the puck. Juneau, Bernier and Guevremont are more than capable of moving the puck and shooting it through the flailing limbs in front of the net. If Brown manages to tip it in or get to the rebound, good for him.

Just to provide a frame of reference, here are the 5th-8th-11th PPG scoring wingers since the league hit 30 teams (before that the rankings would have to be adjusted somehow, and I'm not going there).

Results listed as Left Wing/Right Wing
The size of the scoring numbers involved causes a lot of multi-way ties. These were broken according to fewest GP, then most overall goals, then most overall points. Full disclosure, a couple of Brown's rank bumped down in these tiebreakers from 8th to 11th and 11th to 13th, but by the time I got that far I had done a whole lot of sorting, and frankly, a tiebreaker doesn't matter much to the overall argument here, so I just left it alone and finished.

Now I am not in any way suggesting this is more than an illustration. There are definitely more accurate (and much more time-intensive) ways to represent the best PP scoring wingers. But I think there are some takeaways other than just name-dropping some comparables.

1) This list has a lot of outliers just like any other, but you don't see a lot of repeat performances unless they are damned good PP players.

2) Playing on the PP is the forward's equivalent of "sheltered minutes". It allows a coach to take a specialized player and give him a simple task with little risk of backfire. Scattered all throughout that list are try-hard guys who were past their prime, unable to keep up at even strength, but still effective at planting their ***** in front of the net and waiting for the puck to arrive. That's the mark of an effective PP power forward -- not high point totals, or high TOI, or any of our other normal metrics. Just a good thick body frame and a willingness to stick his nose into the most painful spot on the rink on the off chance a puck might hit his foot on the way to the net. That's pretty much the only reason guys like Guerin, Smyth and Tkachuk were even serviceable NHL'ers in the years they appear here, and it's the only reason Dustin Brown is on that list three times.

I have absolutely zero doubt that it Don Cherry taps Dustin Brown on the shoulder halfway through a power play, that shift is not going to end with the goaltender standing on both feet. And that is all I want from him here.

It's the same logic used earlier in the thread when Craven was defended as a solid playmaking winger. His assist totals are ugly among all players, but if you boil it down to only his contemporary LWs, he looks like a middle-of-the-road 1st liner here. I thought it was a point well made by BillyShoe. .......looking at his points among all players is like measuring Craven's effectiveness by his goal scoring among all players...........

This is nitpicking, but looking at his assists among all players (not points) would be like measuring Craven’s effectiveness by his goal scoring among all players.

Anyway, yeah, I think this is a good point by Billy, but I still don’t buy you applying it to Brown. For the following reason:

There is a clear and obvious trend that shows wingers have higher G:A ratios and lower assist totals in general. Therefore, playmaking wingers are somewhat rare, as anyone here will confirm. There is nothing rare about wingers who score goals, or PP goals in particular. Isolating wingers for the purposes of demonstrating strong playmaking from the wing is often necessary due to the inherent disadvantage – for the same reason we typically note that “so and so was 6th, 7th, 10th, 14th in points by defensemen” and not “19th, 28th, 48th, and 64th in points”. There is no such disadvantage for wingers in goal scoring, or PP goal scoring.

FWIW, Brown has scored 19 adjusted PPP/season in his career. Here are some other figures for post-expansion guys who are on the PP here:

Nilsson: 23 (based on just 170 NHL games though, would likely be higher if it included WHA adjustments)
Kehoe: 20
Juneau: 24
Bernier: 20 (based on just 302 NHL games, would likely be higher if it included WHA adjustments)

Craven: 13
Stoughton: 20

Interestingly, everyone is in the same range, and they are also in the same range for career PP usage (45-52%) – indicating that none of them are particularly more adept at scoring PP points. To Brown’s credit, he does stick with “the pack” in this regard. Craven is the exception, but with career PP usage of 36% that is to be expected. A simple addition of 50% usage and production suggests that at 49% usage he would produce at a 19-20 rate, putting him right there with Brown and the rest, and it’s just not how he was used.

This is nitpicking, but looking at his assists among all players (not points) would be like measuring Craven’s effectiveness by his goal scoring among all players.

Right -- I was arriving at the same place by the logic that we already know his goal numbers, so looking up his points would effectively give us his assists as well. His PP scoring is slanted toward goals, and his role slanted away from playmaking, to such an extent that I don't see the relevance of his ability to pile assists onto his goal total.

But it is interesting that his PP numbers are still within the pack. I would assume that's the result of a fairly high goals:assist ratio, as compared to the more rounded or assist-oriented games of those comparables.

At the end of the day, he's surely not an elite PP producer but I don't see why he couldn't fill the very narrow role of being a crease presence on the second unit. Also, I think it was Canadiens 1958 who pointed this out, it would mean that there wouldn't be a need for a wholesale line change post-PP if the 4th line rolls in.

With all this talk about historic PP production, I decided to check the forum and see what had been said about it in the past. I came across a post from Overpass listing the PP numbers from the 1953-54 Rangers, pulled from the game summary project. And guess who happened to be on that team? The Winnipeg Monarchs' 2nd-unit left wing

Overpass called Mickoski an "even strength scorer" in that post, and tied it to some very low PP numbers. And that was during one of his highest goal scoring seasons for which we have box scores! Since we're pressed for time here and a full career analysis is implausible, I decided to pull the numbers for his next two highest-scoring seasons and see if the pattern bears out.

1952-53 Rangers

Player

Goals

Assists

Points

Ronty

4

8

12

Hergesheimer

7

4

11

Buller

0

9

9

Stanley

1

7

8

Stoddard

3

2

5

Howell

2

2

4

Mickoski

1

3

4

Strain

1

3

4

Raleigh

0

4

4

Prentice

3

0

3

Dickinson

2

1

3

Kraftchek

1

2

3

Reise

0

3

3

Babando

2

0

2

Guidolin

1

1

2

Kukulowicz

1

0

1

Kullman

1

0

1

Senick

1

0

1

Stewart

1

0

1

Conacher

0

1

1

1953-54 Rangers (as calculated by overpass)

Player

Team

PPG

PPA

PPP

Henry

NYR

20

12

32

Bentley M

NYR

9

14

23

Hergesheimer

NYR

8

9

17

Ronty

NYR

4

12

16

Buller

NYR

1

11

12

Raleigh

NYR

2

6

8

Bentley D

NYR

0

8

8

Mickoski

NYR

3

4

7

Howell

NYR

0

3

3

Prentice

NYR

0

2

2

Kullman

NYR

0

0

0

Hildebrand

NYR

0

0

0

Irwin

NYR

0

0

0

1955-56 Black Hawks

Player

G

A

P

R Sullivan

4

4

8

Litzenberger

1

7

8

Wilson

5

1

6

Stanley

1

5

6

Sandford

3

2

5

Dewsbury

1

4

5

Watson

1

3

4

Ciesla

0

4

4

Lalande

0

4

4

Mickoski

1

2

3

Mortson

1

1

2

Pilote

1

1

2

Martin

1

0

1

Mcintyre

1

0

1

Fogolin

0

1

1

Since these are among his best scoring seasons, we can be fair about projecting these numbers out into the rest of Mickoski's career. He may have had an outlier season at some point, but it would have been only an outlier.

So after ripping Brown for his team placements on the PP, the Monarchs are actually using a guy at the same line, position, and role who is demonstrably worse

Since these are among his best scoring seasons, we can be fair about projecting these numbers out into the rest of Mickoski's career. He may have had an outlier season at some point, but it would have been only an outlier.

So after ripping Brown for his team placements on the PP, the Monarchs are actually using a guy at the same line, position, and role who is demonstrably worse

PP scoring in the 1950s is vastly, vastly different than PP scoring in the 2000s. I can't believe I actually have to point this out. My understanding is that during that time, the first unit played basically the entire 2 minutes. And what do you know? The data backs it up! Look at the 53-54 season, Henry-Bentley-Hergesheimer was the first PP line that year, and they have the numbers to back it up. If you weren't a first liner(with rare exceptions like Henry who was a PP specialist) you barely got any PP time back then.

yeah, a lot more leeway has to be given for 1953-1967 players on the PP, as there were really only 18 prime PP forward spots up for grabs. Their overall or ES offensive ability has to be used as a proxy for PP ability. For players before 1953 (when the HSP sheets stop providing situation data), overall offensive ability become the sole criteria IMO.

PP scoring in the 1950s is vastly, vastly different than PP scoring in the 2000s. I can't believe I actually have to point this out. My understanding is that during that time, the first unit played basically the entire 2 minutes. And what do you know? The data backs it up! Look at the 53-54 season, Henry-Bentley-Hergesheimer was the first PP line that year, and they have the numbers to back it up. If you weren't a first liner(with rare exceptions like Henry who was a PP specialist) you barely got any PP time back then.

The Bentleys played the point. Mickoski was behind Henry, Hergesheimer, Ronty at forward on the PP.

I'm sorry, but it's ludicrous to rip a current player for scoring 13 power play goals and then praise an O6 player for scoring 1. I can buy adjustments to a point, but come on.

OK, look at it this way. Who are the best PP scorers at any given time? A fair way to look at it would be to use the PP scoring leaders, right? Once you get towards the bottom of that barrel, who would be the next best? I would suggest that the best remaining ES scorers, who simply weren’t played much on the PP, would likely have been the next best. Is there a more reasonable assumption to make?

I would assume the same thing about today’s NHL, when there are legitimately 180 PP spots for players to cash in on, if we ever got to the point that we drafted all the PP players from the era (which we never would)

But what you’re suggesting is to go down a pretty slippery slope; that is, that all the worthwhile PP players from before expansion are now drafted, and since the only players left with any substantial evidence of playing on the PP are modern, those are the only ones we should draft for the PP.

But what you’re suggesting is to go down a pretty slippery slope; that is, that all the worthwhile PP players from before expansion are now drafted, and since the only players left with any substantial evidence of playing on the PP are modern, those are the only ones we should draft for the PP.

I get what you're saying here, but the slope isn't that slippery. Look at the guys ahead of Mickoski on that list -- it isn't exactly a murderer's row of ATD'ers. Several were taken in this draft, some haven't even been drafted yet, and without checking I'd guess that a couple are never-drafteds. It's not a leap to conclude that if Mickoski couldn't outscore those guys, or wasn't even put on the ice ahead of them, then he was flat-out not a good PP player. The fact that he played O6 hockey doesn't grant him some kind of imaginary ATD ability he didn't really have.

But for the sake of argument, I'll roll with it. Here are the top-6 adjusted scoring seasons for Brown and Mickoski; and I'm giving Mickoski that 15% boost on top of his real numbers.

Goals

Brown

Mickoski

35

29

34

29

31

29

29

28

29

22

29

21

Points

Brown

Mickoski

66

67

62

60

60

55

60

54

54

53

47

51

What remains of their careers are Brown's rookie and sophomore seasons, and some injury-riddled dreck from Mickoski.

Can we call it case-closed now? By attacking Brown as a supposedly inadequate option, Winnipeg has exposed their own even-worse option on the same line, with the same role.

OK, look at it this way. Who are the best PP scorers at any given time? A fair way to look at it would be to use the PP scoring leaders, right? Once you get towards the bottom of that barrel, who would be the next best? I would suggest that the best remaining ES scorers, who simply weren’t played much on the PP, would likely have been the next best. Is there a more reasonable assumption to make?.

What about the top minor league scorers? I expect some of them would have had substantial PP minutes in an expanded NHL.

See the 1967 expansion. Mike McMahon led all defencemen in PP points, after playing in the Central Hockey League during the previous season.

1) I don't deny the Monarchs are a gritty team, but they lack actual size down the middle. That's a significant handicap over 7 games, not just in physical matchups but also in matters of puck possession.

2) After listing the top-6 forwards under multiple methods, it's apparent that the Polar Twins have the odd numbered players (1-3-5-7) and the Monarchs have the even numbers (2-4-6-8). That's not a huge gap, but it's a clear one and adds up over time.

3) Karakas is an average starter in this MLD, whereas Beaupre is among the weakest.

4) I maintain that Nilsson-Horvath as my #1 and #2 centers is a pairing of more demonstrably impactful players than McGimsie-Reay.

5) Winnipeg would need to have a significant advantage at the blue line to overcome points 1-4. They don't have that advantage.

-This team is tailored to succeed under Bobby Kromm. He was known for getting the absolute most out of his players, and will love the amount of grit that this team plays with.

-Despite the fact that Winnipeg's centers may not be as big as Winston-Salem's, they are significantly tougher.

-I would maintain that Winnipeg might have the 2 best goal scorers in the entire series(Hergesheimer and Stoughton). We definitely have the best in Stoughton.

-Winston Salem's first pairing is questionable defensively. Both guys were high scoring offensive players, but barely received any all star recognition. Maxwell was also a physical player, meaning he should have been subject to "Rob Blake Syndrome" because he was a flashy player who scored and hit, but never received any real all star consideration.

-Winston Salem's first line is seriously lacking in defensive ability. If they are out with the 1st defensive pairing, which my opponent has insinuated will happen often, they are going to be bad in their own zone. Kehoe was a negative defensive player, with neither of his linemates helping at all in that area. Combined with the questionable defensive play of the first pairing, I think this is a serious concern.

-Mike Karakas' GAA goes up by .09 in the playoffs compared to the regular season. Don Beaupre's goes down by .1 from the regular season to playoffs.

-Horvath is a better #2 center than Reay, but if you look at the role each is playing on their respective lines, comparing them that way doesn't make sense. Compare Horvath to his Winnipeg counterpart that is the triggerman on their line(Stoughton) and Stoughton is better.

-Overall, Winnipeg's team is a tougher, grittier group. Winnipeg's top 6 is also better defensively than their counterparts.